Re: Barbie Heads, OT, was [ihc] Metro 1:87

[william cunningham <slypigs@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Where do you find this stuff! too funny.

John M. Adams wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-ihc@domain.elided [mailto:owner-ihc@domain.elided]On Behalf Of
>>william cunningham
>>Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 9:20 PM
>>To: John M. Adams; ihc@domain.elided
>>Subject: Re: [ihc] Metro 1:87
>>
>>Thanks John,
>>
>>looks like I may have a long wait before playing in the dirt due to the
>>snow we got yesterday
>>(but if I chain it up...).
>>
>>With two daughters my collection of trucks and such are in the condition
>>I left them in, the Barbies did not fair so well, I am still finding
>>Barbie parts in the yard, years later.
>>
>>Looks like a hairy walnut... nope. just another Barbie head.
>>
>>Willy
>>
>
>Willie, you're two for two! Thanks for the belly laughs. They hurt, but in a
>good way.
>
>And though it was funny all by itself, your "just another Barbie head" also
>made me think of the following "document". It's off topic, and some of you
>may have seen it, but I'll pass it along in the hopes that more laughter
>will happen.
>
>Thanks,
>
>John A.
>
>-------------------
>
>______________________________ Forward Header
>__________________________________
>Subject: Paleoanthropology Division
>Author:  <toby@domain.elided> (xxxxxxxx) at smtpcc
>Date:    5/10/96 5:41 PM
>
>
>[This is, ALLEGEDLY, a real letter that was sent out by the
>Smithsonian.  Apparently, a Smithsonian employee took a copy of it
>home to show to her husband and he put a copy of it on the
>internet.]
>
>Paleoanthropology Division
>Smithsonian Institute
>207 Pennsylvania Avenue
>Washington, DC 20078
>
>Dear Sir:
>
>Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled
>"211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post.  Hominid skull."  We
>have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret
>to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents
>"conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County
>two million years ago."  Rather, it appears that what you have found
>is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has
>small children, believes to be the "Malibu Barbie".  It is evident
>that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this
>specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are
>familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to
>contradiction with your findings.  However, we do feel that there are
>a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have
>tipped you off to its modern origin:
>
>     1. The material is molded plastic.  Ancient hominid remains are
>        typically fossilized bone.
>
>     2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic
>        centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest
>        identified proto-hominids.
>
>     3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more
>        consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the
>        "ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the
>        wetlands during that time.  This latter finding is certainly one of
>        the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history
>        with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather
>        heavily against it.  Without going into too much detail, let us say
>that:
>
>           A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll
>              that a dog has chewed on.
>
>           B. Clams don't have teeth.
>
>It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your
>request to have the specimen carbon dated.  This is partially due
>to the heavy load our lab must bear in its normal operation, and
>partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent
>geologic record.  To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls
>were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce
>wildly inaccurate results.  Sadly, we must also deny your request that
>we approach the National Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department with
>the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name
>"Australopithecus spiff-arino."  Speaking personally, I, for one,
>fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but
>was ultimately voted down because the species name you selected
>as hyphenated, and didn't really sound like it might be Latin.
>
>However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating
>specimen to the museum.  While it is undoubtedly not a huminoid fossil,
>it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of
>work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly.  You should know
>that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for
>the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the
>Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will
>happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your
>back yard.  We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital
>that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing
>the Director to pay for it.  We are particularly interested in hearing
>you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating
>fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" that makes the
>excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered take
>on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive
>crescent wrench.
>
>                               Yours in Science,
>
>
>                               Harvey Rowe
>                               Curator, Antiquities